The Reception of J.M. Coetzee in Russia

Abstract

The reception of Coetzee’s work in Russia should be interesting for a number of reasons, not least, because of Coetzee’s own interest in Russian literature. The article points at a certain analogy that is detectable in the works of J.M. Coetzee and Russian classics. The affinity, which exists on various levels including the created universe as well as a certain philosophical outlook of characters, not only attests to the South African writer’s literary erudition but also points at his particular interest in Russian literary exploits, which opens the range of possibilities for further comparative study. In the second part of the article, the author surveys briefly a number of reviews that appeared in Russia concurrently with the publication of Russian translations of Coetzee’s work. As it appears, Russian critics are not aware of Coetzee’s essays on topics related to Russian literature, as these are not available in Russian as yet. They also seldom note intertextual links between his writing and Russian literature, and if they do, it is done in a cursory manner. Nevertheless, as can be seen in the reviews surveyed in this article, Coetzee’s creative works are well-known and appreciated by Russian critics and the reading public alike. In order to illustrate areas of interest on which Russian reviewers hinge their evaluation of Coetzee’s novels as well as an overall tonality of their reviews, a brief summary of the more discerning reviews, usually solicited by the Russian publishers, is given in English,1 with particular emphasis on Waiting for the Barbarians, Life & Times of Michael K, Disgrace and The Master of Petersburg.

Opsomming

Daar is ’n paar redes waarom die wyse waarop Coetzee se werk in Rusland ontvang word, interessant is, veral as ons Coetzee se eie belangstelling in Russiese letterkunde in gedagte hou. Hierdie artikel wys op ’n bepaalde analogie tussen Coetzee se werk en klassieke Russiese werke. Daar is affiniteit op verskeie vlakke, insluitende die vlak van die geskape wêreld en ’n bepaalde filosofiese beskouing van karakters. Dít is ’n teken van die Suid-Afrikaanse skrywer se uitgebreide kennis van die letterkunde en sy besondere belangstelling in die hoogtepunte van die Russiese letterkunde. Die moontlikhede vir vergelykende studie wat hieruit voort-spruit, is legio. In die tweede gedeelte van die artikel ondersoek die navorser kortliks ’n aantal Russiese resensies van die Russiese vertalings van Coetzee se werk. Russiese kritici is blykbaar onbewus van Coetzee se essays oor onderwerpe wat met Russiese letterkunde verband hou omdat hierdie essays nog nie in Russies beskikbaar is nie. Die kritici sien voorts nie die intertekstuele skakels tussen Coetzee se werk en die Russiese letterkunde raak nie, maar selfs al sien hulle dit raak, skenk hulle nie veel aandag daaraan nie. Die resensies in hierdie artikel toon nietemin dat Coetzee se skeppende werk goed aan Russiese kritici en die Russiese eserspubliek bekend is, en dat dit aansien geniet. Russiese resesente baseer hul evaluerings van Coetzee se romans en die oorkoepelende toonaard van hul resensies op bepaalde aspekte van Coetzee se werk. Ter illustrasie hiervan word kort Engelse opsommings van die meer oordeelkundige resensies (wat gewoonlik deur die Russiese uitgewers aangevra word) by die artikel ingesluit. Die klem val veral op Waiting for the Barbarians, Life & Times of Michael K, Disgrace en The Master of Petersburg.